2005 (12) TMI 556 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the policy decision taken by the State in the matter of allotment of quarters by rotation basis was illegal?

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of the policy decision of allotment of quarters on a rotational basis.
2. Jurisdiction of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in matters related to allotment of quarters.
3. Judicial review of administrative action concerning government policy decisions.
4. Interpretation of fundamental rights and constitutional provisions in relation to policy decisions.
5. Justness and fairness in the allotment of government quarters.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged a judgment by the Orissa High Court that deemed the policy decision of allotting quarters on a rotational basis by the State illegal. The policy aimed to provide rent-free accommodation to Orissa State Armed Police Personnel for a minimum of three years due to a shortage of family accommodation. The Tribunal dismissed the challenge, stating it lacked jurisdiction as the matter was not covered by the Special Accommodation Rules. The High Court held the policy decision of rotational allotment was contrary to justness and fair-play, which was disputed in the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review of administrative action does not permit interference with government policy decisions unless they violate statutory provisions, fundamental rights, or constitutional provisions.

2. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal's jurisdiction in matters related to the allotment of quarters was questioned in the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed an Original Application challenging the rotational system of allotment, stating it was not covered by the Special Accommodation Rules. Another application was filed later, which was also dismissed. The High Court further dismissed writ petitions challenging the system of allotment, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court clarified that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited concerning matters covered by specific rules and regulations.

3. The appeal raised issues regarding the scope of judicial review of administrative action concerning government policy decisions. The Supreme Court reiterated that the Court cannot act as an appellate authority over policy decisions and should not interfere unless there is a violation of statutory provisions, fundamental rights, or constitutional provisions. The Court highlighted that the Government has the discretion to make policy decisions, and the Court should not substitute its judgment for that of the executive unless fundamental rights are infringed.

4. The judgment discussed the interpretation of fundamental rights and constitutional provisions in the context of policy decisions. The High Court's conclusion that the rotational allotment policy was contrary to justness and fair-play was challenged in the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Court's role in judicial review is limited to ensuring decisions do not violate fundamental rights or statutory provisions. The Court highlighted that policy decisions are within the domain of the Government, and the Court should not interfere unless there is a clear violation of legal principles.

5. The appeal addressed the issue of justness and fairness in the allotment of government quarters. The High Court found the rotational allotment policy unfair and unjustifiable, leading to the appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Court should not interfere in policy decisions unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that if there have been any changes in the policy decision, they should be operative. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs, concluding the matter.